A new Tech available MOAB

@black_elk said in Working on a New Map 40/41: Seeking Suggestions:

perhaps with some map making type tutorials in the same way that Pact of Steel 2 taught how to create an xml and such

:+1:

I’m a bit late coming to this discussion thread, and my comments will just relate to one point from your original post, in which you were commenting that “the current way to deal with neutral nations is not good and makes the playing feel simulated.”  I quite agree that the game’s division of non-player countries into three types of neutrals (pro-Allied, pro-Axis and strict) and its two types of rules for neutrals (one for the pro-type neutrals and one for the strict neutrals) is problematic in several ways, particularly the rule which says that every strict neutral state in the world joins side X when one of these states is attacked by side Y.  A point that should be kept in mind, however, is the reason why those rules exist.  The reason for the existance of the rules makes a certain amount of historic sense, even though the actual mechanism of the rules is arguable

I don’t think the rules actually state the rationale explicitly, but it seems clear – based on an examination of which countries have which type of neutral status – that the neutrals rules are meant to strongly encourage (one notch below “force”) the players to replicate some of the historical events of WWII which occured after the game’s 1940 start date.  These situations include certain countries fighting alongside the Axis powers as co-belligerents (examples: Finland and Iraq) and certain countries being pitched into the Allied side either because they were invaded by the Axis (examples: Yugoslavia and Greece) or because they were preemptively invaded by the Allies over concerns that their current government was too sympathetic to the Axis (example: Persia / Iran).  As for the very unrealistic “every strict neutral state in the world joins side X when one of these states is attacked by side Y” rule, it’s basically a blunt instrument aimed at keeping all the player powers out of the states that managed to stay neutral in WWII.  And to reinforce the message, the neutral states are given different-sized “keep out” signs (the size of their standing armies) to underline which ones the players are particularly discouraged from invading.  Turkey, with its standing army of 8, comes at the top of the list – nor surprisingly, because Turkey offers a potential link-up between the war in North Africa and the war in Southern Europe and the USSR.

Extremely well thought out, I wouldn’t play it to be honest, but I admire your creativity.

Just to say again, that I like this solution for G40.

In the tripleA edit mode it only take a few moments.

Just enable edit mode
edit the “territory ownership” of Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina and Chile to USA
click the neutral infantry and remove them, then “add units.” The default is American, since you already changed ownership.
then “Change PUs” of America from 52 to 60 ipcs.

Easy. It’s also fun to watch how the AI tries to make use of the new loot and the new units haha
:-D

Hmmm,

NEW sculps, huh. Well, without a doubt I want:

1.) An AIRBASE that’s 3-D but doesn’t have too big a “footprint”.
2.) A NAVAL BASE "      "    "      "        "    "    "  "        "      .

I think almost ALL of us have been dreaming of these for years! The new “markers” aren’t
3-D. I want a 3-D unit like the Factories(I.C.) in the old original A&A games. The Risk game has some that work great for Minor I.C.'s.

Please Santa(HBG), I’ve been a good soldier(grin).

“Tall Paul”

@Warplayer12:

i was reading the newspaper, en then i get an idea: a continental war. Every continent (Europe, Asia,Africa etc.) gets their own army and fight each other

You could get the Attack and Attack Expansion game from Eagle Games and use that for your map and forces.  You have infantry, tanks, artillery, aircraft, battleships, aircraft carriers, destroyers, and submarines.  The combat system works considerably differently from A&A, and depending on whether you use the basic games rules or the Deluxe Expansion rules, production points work differently too, along with tech development.  I prefer the original Attack Expansion, and I am running a game using a mixture of the basic game, original Expansion, and the Deluxe expansion.  Works pretty well.

And Australia in not one territory but 5.

I like the original idea.  However, I’d also raise the price of the Industrial Complex to 18 IPC. Maybe even as much as 20 IPC.  You’ll recoup that over the next few rounds from increased income from the territory, and you are, in effect, increasing the power of that Industrial Complex by a factorial.  Instead of 2 tanks, you can put out 3 tanks.  Instead of 3 infantry, you can put out 3 infantry and a fighter.  Etc.

And yes, this will most likely help Japan way more then any other nation.  Though, the S. African IC will be a lot more powerful now, if you go that route. mwuhahahaha

I was also thinking maybe transports could carrymoney to other nations.